Oral ulcerative mucositis is a common, painful, dose-limiting toxicity of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for cancer (Sonis, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 2004, 4, 277-284; Keefe et al., Cancer, 2007, 109, 820-831; Belim et al., Support Care Cancer, 2000, 8, 33-39; and Parulekar et al., Oral Oncol., 1998, 34, 63-71). The disorder is characterized by breakdown of the oral mucosa and results in the formation of ulcerative lesions. It can significantly affect nutritional intake, mouth care, and quality of life (Lalla et al., Dent. Clin. North Am., 2005, 49, 167-184; and Duncan et al., Head Neck, 2005, 27, 421-428). The ulcerations that accompany mucositis are frequent portals of entry for oral bacteria often leading to sepsis or bacteremia. For patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation, oral mucositis has been reported to be the single most debilitating complication of transplantation (Belim et al., Support Care Cancer, 2000, 8, 33-39). Infections associated with the oral mucositis lesions can cause life-threatening systemic sepsis during periods of immunosuppression (Rapoport et al., J. Clin. Oncol., 1999, 17, 2446-2453). Mucositis results in increased hospital stays and re-admission rates, and can result in interruptions or early cessation of treatment regimens (Pico et al., The Oncologist, 1998, 3, 446-451; and Elting et al., Cancer, 2003, 98, 1531-1539). The prevalence of mucositis is variable and dependent on the disease and type of treatment being used. Moderate to severe mucositis occurs in virtually all patients who receive radiation therapy for tumors of the head and neck. Among patients who are treated with induction therapy for leukemia or with many of the conditioning regimens for bone marrow transplant, is not unusual for more than three-quarters of patients to develop moderate to severe mucositis. (Belim et al., Support Care Cancer, 2000, 8, 33-39). Annually, nearly 60,000 patients receive a diagnosis of head and neck cancer (Jemal et al., CA Cancer J Clin., 2002, 52, 23-47) and severe mucositis occurs in up to 92% of these treated patients (Parulekar et al., Oral Oncol., 1998, 34, 63-71; Sonis et al., Cancer, 85, 2103-2113). Even in regimens considered to be low risk for development of mucosal toxicity, where incidence rates may range between 10-15%, the large numbers of patients receiving chemotherapy translates to a significant number of patients who experience mucositis (Rubenstein et al., Cancer, 2004, 100, 2026-2046). In addition to quality of life issues, there is a substantial impact of oral mucositis on medical care resources and costs, estimated to be $17,000 per patient, which are related to increased hospitalization stays, medical treatments and medications (Nonzee et al., Cancer, 2008, 113, 1446-1452).
Originally, it was believed that mucositis associated with chemotherapy or radiation treatment was a result of direct cytotoxicity on the basal epithelial cells of the alimentary tract believed to be particularly vulnerable because of their high turnover rate. It has become clear that the pathobiology of mucositis is more complex and involves interactions between the epithelial and the underlying layers and components of the mucosa including fibroblasts, endothelium and extracellular matrix1. Five inter-related stages have been described for the pathobiology associated with oral mucositis and appear to be similar between chemotherapy and radiation-induced lesions. An initiation phase is characterized by DNA damage, reactive oxygen species generation and basal epithelial cell death. These events lead to primary activation of various transcription factors and signal transduction pathways, including NF-κB and p53. NF-kB activation results in the production of inflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and other genes that affect mucosal integrity (Sonis, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 2004, 4, 277-284; and Sonis, Crit. Rev. Oral Biol. Med., 2002, 13, 380-390). These factors and cytokines have been identified in the mucosa and blood of patients experiencing mucositis during cancer treatments (Hall et al., Exp. Hematol., 1995, 23, 1256-1260; and Ferra et al., Haematologica, 1998, 83, 1082-1087). The primary response is amplified through positive feedback loops activating additional pro-inflammatory mediators and transduction pathways such as cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) and mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling (e.g., p38). Together, these pro-inflammatory responses initiate an inflammatory cascade leading to activation of matrix metalloproteinases, including MMP-1 and MMP-3, that cause further tissue damage (Tadashi, Modern Rheumatol., 2006, 16, 197-205). Ulceration then develops which damages the mucosal epithelium and creates portals for bacterial entry and colonization. This is the clinically-important stage where patients experience significant pain and debilitation. It is likely that the bacterial membrane and cell wall components, lipopolysaccharides (LPS) and lipoteichoic acid (LTA), interact with invading macrophages further stimulating the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and tissue damage (Sonis, Oral Oncol., 1998, 34, 39-43). In severe cases, there is a risk that the bacteria can spread systemically through the underlying vasculature causing bacteremia and sepsis. Finally, healing occurs via signaling from the extracellular matrix resulting in re-epithelialization and restoration of normal mucosal integrity.
Based upon the robust population of bacteria, fungi and viruses in the oral cavity, numerous studies have concluded that the oral microflora, although not a significant factor in the primary etiology of mucositis may influence the course of the disease (Sonis, Oral Oncol., 2009, 45, 1015-1020). There is a high degree of similarity between the oral microflora of hamsters and humans, and in a hamster model of mucositis the increase in bacterial load in the ulcer lagged behind the development of the mucositis (Sonis, Oral Oncol., 2009, 45, 1015-1020). These findings do not support a primary role for bacterial numbers in driving mucositis but rather are consistent with the ulcer being a favorable environment for bacterial colonization that exacerbates the initial pathology and increases the risk of subsequent bacteremia, fever and serious infection and sepsis. Although anti-bacterial and anti-fungal strategies have proven to be ineffective in treating oral mucositis (Donnelly et al., Lancet Infect. Dis., 2003, 3, 405-412; and El-Sayed et al., J. Clin. Oncol., 2002, 20, 3956-3963), they will likely be of value in controlling fever and infection aspects of the disease at its later stages.
Despite its frequency, severity and impact on patients' ability to tolerate cancer treatment, there is currently only one approved pharmaceutical for the prevention or treatment for oral mucositis. Palifermin (Kepivance®, recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor-1) was approved for a mucositis indication in patients with hematologic malignancies receiving stem cell transplants. Its efficacy may be related to mitogenic effects on mucosal epithelium and/or alteration of cytokine profiles, including down-regulation of TNF (Logan et al., Cancer Treatment Rev., 2007, 33, 448-460). Palifermin is not widely used due in part to concerns on the potential impact of a growth factor on antineoplastic treatment. Therefore, the care for mucositis is largely palliative. Available agents include topical analgesics (lidocaine), barrier devices (GelClair), or rinses (Caphosol). Systemic analgesics are used for symptom control and antibiotics are used to control secondary infections, and mucositis-related bacteremias and sepsis. Another agent proposed to be used for treatment of mucositis is NX002, which is a peptide derived from AMP-18 (see, U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,910,543 and 7,629,317).
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) isolated from organisms across the phylogenetic spectrum form part of the innate immune system, and serve as the first line of defense against microbial infection in many species (Brogden, Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 2005, 3, 238-250; and Zasloff Nature, 2002, 415, 389-395). They are typically small (12-80 amino acids) cationic amphiphiles that provide protection against a wide variety of pathogenic organisms. Despite the large diversity observed in AMPs, they generally adopt highly amphiphilic topologies in which the hydrophilic and hydrophobic side chains segregate into distinctly opposing regions or faces of the molecule. It is generally believed that this amphiphilic topology is essential for insertion into and disruption of the membrane leading to microbe death (Zasloff, Nature, 2002, 415, 389-395). AMPs have remained an effective weapon against bacterial infection over evolutionary time indicating that their mechanism of action thwarts bacterial responses that lead to resistance against toxic substances. This premise is supported by direct experimental data showing that no appreciable resistance to the action of the AMPs occurs after multiple serial passages of bacteria in the presence of sub-lethal concentrations of the peptides (Gazit et al., Biochemistry, 1995, 34, 11479-11488; and Pouny et al., Biochemistry, 1992, 31, 12416-12423).
The cytotoxic activity of the cationic and amphiphilic peptides specifically targets bacteria over mammalian cells. This specificity is most likely related to fundamental differences between the two membrane types; bacteria have a large proportion of negatively charged phospholipid headgroups on their surface while the outer leaflet of mammalian cells is composed mainly of neutral lipids (Zasloff, Nature, 2002, 415, 389-395). Also, the presence of cholesterol in the animal cell membrane and other differences in lipid compositions with bacterial membranes contribute to the selectivity of the AMPs (Yang et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2007, 129, 12141-12147).
Given their very broad specificity, amphiphilic AMPs appear to be ideal therapeutic agents. However, significant pharmaceutical issues, including poor tissue distribution, systemic toxicity, and difficulty and expense of manufacturing, have severely hampered their clinical progress. A series of non-peptidic mimics of the AMPs that have distinct advantages over peptides for pharmaceutical uses have been developed. The goal of the synthetic approach was to capture the structural and biological properties of AMPs within the framework of inexpensive oligomers (Scott et al., Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 2008, 19, 620-627; and Tew et al., ACC, 2009, 43, 30-39). It was reasoned that small synthetic oligomers that adopt amphiphilic secondary structures while exhibiting potent and selective antimicrobial activity would be less expensive to produce, have better tissue distribution, and be much easier to fine-tune structurally to improve activity and minimize toxicity.
Clearly, there is a high medical need for the development of safe and effective therapies that can prevent or significantly lessen the clinical course of ulcerative mucositis without negatively influencing the cancer therapy. The apparent multifactorial pathogenesis of oral mucositis suggests that a therapeutic agent that possesses dual anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial activities may be highly effective in treating the disease.